Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.VI, R.17

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O.VI, R.17---Amendment in pleadings sought in post-remand proceedings, rejection of---Non-framing of consolidated issues---Effect---Application for amendment being filed prior to framing of consolidated issues was maintainable as consolidated cases were at fresh trial stage after post remand proceedings---Amendment can be sought at any stage of proceedings---Scope---The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were real brothers who jointly purchased the suit property---The respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the jointly owned property, while the petitioner contested it on the ground of an existing family settlement---Subsequently, the petitioner filed his own suit for declaration and permanent injunction reiterating the same plea---Both suits were consolidated by the Trial Court but without framing consolidated issues the respondent's suit was decreed while the petitioner's suit was dismissed---The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed, but later the High Court set aside the decrees and remanded the matter for framing consolidated issues and fresh decision on merits---During post-remand proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under O.VI, R.17 C.P.C to elaborate particulars of the earlier-pleaded family settlement, which was dismissed by both the trial and revisional courts---Core issue for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether the petitioner's application for amendment under O. VI, R.17, C.P.C., filed during post-remand proceedings to elaborate particulars of the family settlement already pleaded was competent"?---Held: No doubt the proposed amendment was sought after delay of almost seven years from filing of the petitioner's suit, however, it was significant that the application was filed prior to the framing of consolidated issues in post-remand proceedings and pursuant to remand by the High Court the cases were to be tried afresh after framing of consolidated issues and recording of fresh evidence, therefore, both suits were at a stage like a fresh trial---Petitioner had consistently taken the plea of family settlement since the very inception…